Early Careers for Biomedical Scientists: Doubling (and ...sewp/Early Careers for Biomedical...
Transcript of Early Careers for Biomedical Scientists: Doubling (and ...sewp/Early Careers for Biomedical...
Early Careers for Biomedical Scientists: Doubling (and Troubling) Outcomes
Paula [email protected]
Georgia State UniversityFebruary 26, 2007
Overview
• Throughout 1990s concern expressed regarding workforce outcomes for early career biomedical scientists
• In late 1990s, NIH budget began an expansion that resulted in a doubling of the budget over a 5-year period
• Here we examine the effects of this doubling on careers of young life scientists
Overview continued
• Begin by discussing why the young are of special interest
• Continue by summarizing the early career situation for biomedical scientists in the 1990s.
• Update the situation, for 2003 and 2005.• Examine NIH funding patterns during and after
the doubling• Conclude with a summary and discussion of
what the future may hold
Acknowledgements/Caveats• Portion of presentation uses data from Survey of
Doctorate Recipients. Use of data does not imply NSF endorsement of research methods or conclusions.
• SDR data are for PhDs who received their doctoral training in U.S.; includes MD/PhDs; fails to count those who received PhD training outside the U.S.
• Views expressed are not those of NIH• Acknowledge support from the Science and
Engineering Workforce Project funded by Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Why Focus on the Young?• Relationship of age to productivity• Cohort effects: initial labor market conditions
when one gets a PhD have impact throughout career
• Young have been drawn to study biomedical sciences because of a love of science…highly motivated
• Efficiency concerns—is this a rational policy?• Signals created by poor prospects affect future
flows into PhD programs
Situation in 1990s• In 1996 NRC established a committee to study
trends in the early careers of life scientists.• Rationale for study was that production of PhDs
had been growing but job market outcomes had not. Manifested by such indicators as– Increase in time to degree– Increase in number holding postdoc position and
length of postdoc position– Decrease in probability of holding a tenure track
position– Decline in NIH support for young investigators
NRC Committee
• Chaired by Shirley Tilghman, Currently President of Princeton
Number o f Ph.D.s Conferred in the B iomedica l Sc iences1963-1996
0
1200
2400
3600
4800
6000
7200
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Y ears
To
tal P
h.D
.s
Number of P h.D .'sSource: NRC Report
Median Time to Degree and Age at Degree(US Life-Science Ph.D.s in the Biom edical Sciences)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Year
Tim
e to
Deg
ree
28.5
29
29.5
30
30.5
31
31.5
32
Med
ian
Ag
e at
Tim
e o
f Deg
ree
Time to Degree Median Age at Time of Degree
Source: NRC Report
Percent of US Life-Science Ph.D.s in the Biom edical Sciences Planning Post Doctoral Train ing Upon
G raduation
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
1 9 6 3 1 9 6 4 1 9 6 5 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8 1 9 7 9 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6
Year
Per
cen
t
Postdoctoral A ppointments
Source: NRC Report
Fraction of Biom edical L ife Science Doctorates in Postdoctoral Appointm ents in Academ e, Industry, and
G overnm ent (1973-1995)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1-2 Y ears S inc e P h.D. 3-4 Y ears S inc e P h.D. 5-6 Y ears S ince P h.D.
In terview D ate
Per
cen
t
1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995 Source: NRC Report
Percent of Biom edical Life Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (5-6 Years Since Degree)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Tenure-TrackFaculty Position at
PhD Ins titutions
Tenure-TrackFaculty Position atOther Institutions
Industry Federal Labs andOther Government
Other
Employment Sector
Per
cen
t
1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995Source: NRC Report
Number of Biomedical Life Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (5-6 Years Since Degree)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Tenure-TrackFaculty Pos ition at
PhD Ins titutions
Tenure-TrackFaculty Pos ition atOther Ins titutions
Indus try Federal Labs andOther Government
Other
Employment Sector
Nu
mb
er
1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995
Source: NRC Report
Percent of B iom edical L ife Science Ph.D .s in Part-time, Temporary Positions or Unemployed
(5-6 Years Since Receipt of Ph.D .)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995
Survey Year
Per
cen
t
Postdocs Employed Part-time Unemployed and Seeking Other Academic Positions
Data: NRC Report
Percent of Life-Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (5-6 Years Since Degree) 1973 and 1995 by Ranking of
Institution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tenure-TrackFaculty
Position at PhDInstitutions
Tenure-TrackFaculty
Position atOther
Institutions
Industry Federal Labsand Other
Government
Other
Interview Date
Per
cent
Quality Institutions (1973) Quality Institutions(1995) Series5 Other Institutions (1973) Other Institutions (1995)
Data: NRC Report
NIH Support For those 35 and Younger
• 1993 about 380 awards• 1994 about 410 awards• 1995 about 350 awards• 1996 about 340 awards• 1997 about 330 awards• 1998 about 330 awards• Average age at first independent award in 1980:
37; average age in 1990 39.5. Continued to rise during 1990s.
Summary of Recommendations of NRC Committee
• Restraint of the Rate of Growth of the Number of Graduate Students in the Life Sciences
• Dissemination of Accurate Information on the Career Prospects of Young Life Scientists
• Improvement of the Educational Experience of Graduate Students
• Enhancement of Opportunities for Independence of Postdoctoral Fellows
• Alternative Paths to Careers in the Life Sciences
Post Report Situation
• NIH budget doubled• Number of PhDs residing in U.S. who
trained in U.S. aged 35 or younger increased; postdocs trained outside the U.S. also increased.
• Hiring patterns of U.S. trained changed somewhat, with a lag
• See this by looking at NSF data and at AAMC Faculty Roster Data
NIH Budget BUDGET AUTHORITY FY 1977 – FY 2007(Current vs. Constant 1977 Dollars Using BRDPI as the Inflation Factor)(Dollars in Billions)
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0 19771978
1979
1980
19811982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
19881989
1990
1991
1992
19931994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
20032004
2005
2006
2007
Current Dollars Constant Dollars
OER: NIH Budget over time
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Num
ber
Age 35 or Younger
Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age 35 or Younger
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Num
ber
Age 35 or Younger In Tenure-track Jobs
Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age 35 or Younger
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Conclude• Number of tenure track positions occupied by
those trained in the U.S. 35 and younger held constant at best until 2001; then grew somewhat towards end of NIH doubling.
• Probability that a young person trained in biomedical life sciences in U.S. holds a tenure track position is about the same in 2003 as it was in 1993 and improved between 2001 and 2003: 10.3 % to 10.4% (or from 6.9% in 2001).
• Next slides show that – postdoc situation also improved; – non-tenure track positions grew during the period
010203040506070
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Perc
enta
ge
0-2 Years 3-4 Years 5-6 Years 7-8 Years Over 8 Years
Proportion of Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. in Postdoc PositionsBy Time Since Degree
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
02,0004,0006,0008,000
10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Num
ber
Unemployed & Outof the Labor ForcePT Employed
Other FTEmployedPostdoc
Not Tenure-track
Labor Force Status of Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age35 or Younger in Other than Tenure-Track Positions
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Labor Market Outcomes in the Biomedical Sciences Across Age
Groups
• Tenure track by age• Full-time employment by sector• Tenure-track status in academe• Labor force status
Tenure Track Biomedical Faculty by Age
05,000
10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
G 55
51-55
46-50
41-45
35-40
LE 35
Tenure track status is for those trained in U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Labor Force Status: Biomedical PhDs
020000400006000080000
100000120000140000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Unemployed/Out ofLabor ForcePart Time
Full time not university
Post doc
Total Academe
Labor force Status for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Full Time Positions by Sector: Biomedical Sciences
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Full time not universityPost docTotal Academe
Slide shows positions for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not implyNSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Summary
• Growth in non-academic sector jobs has outpaced growth in academic sector jobs during the period for those trained in the United States.
• Growth in those unemployed or out of the labor force
• Decline in percent in post doc positions from 13.3% to 9.7%
Tenure Track Status: Biomedical Sciences
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
total-non-tenure trackTotal tenure-track
Slide shows tenure tract status for those trained in the United States. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Summary
• Growth in academic positions for those trained in the United States during past 10 years of about 33%
• Growth is noticeable during NIH-doubling period
• Growth has been heavily concentrated in the non-tenure track positions– Non-tenure track has grown by over 70%– Tenure-track has grown by 20%
Medical Colleges vs. Non-medical Colleges
• Next slides show that– Growth has been in medical colleges– Especially among non-tenure track positions
Academic Positions by Sector
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
total medicaltotal non-medical
Slide shows positions held by those trained in the United States. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSFdata does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Medical Faulcy Positions by Tenure Track, Biomedical Sciences
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Non Tenture TrackTenure Track
Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Summary
• See growth in hiring of individuals trained in the U.S. among medical colleges during the decade relative to non-medical colleges
• Change in mix of tenure and tenure track– 33% of medical faculty were in non-tenure track
positions in 1993;– 45% were in non-tenure track positions in 2003.
• Considerable growth in hiring at medical colleges during the NIH doubling period
Non Tenure Track Positions, Biomedical Sciences, Medical Schools
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Other Not TTFull Not TTAssociate Not TTAssistant Not TT
Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Non Tenure Track Positions, Biomedical Sciences, Medical Schools
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Assistant Not TTAssociate Not TTFull Not TTOther Not TT
Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Other Data Indicators
• AAMC Faculty Roster Data• Bricks and Mortar
First Assistant Professorship: Medical Schools
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Num
ber MD-PhD
PhDMD
AAMC Data
Average Age at Time of First Assistant Professorship at US Medical SchoolsAAMC Faculty Roster Data as of March 31, 2006
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
MD
PhDMD/PhD
AAMC Data
Faculty Medical Schools: Basic Sciences
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
physiologymicrobiologyBiochemistry
AAMC Data
S&E Research Space: Academic Institutions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1999 2001 2003
Year
Net
Ass
igna
ble
Sq. F
t. (m
illio
ns)
Agricultural sciences Biological sciences Computer sciences Earth and Ocean Engineering Mathematics Medical sciences Physical sciences
New Construction
• NSF reports greatest number of institutions began construction in fields of biological and medical sciences in FY2002 or FY2003.
• 56% of newly constructed space to be used for these 2 fields
Appears to be good news for early career biomedical scientists
• Age of first assistantship fell for first time in 2003• Jobs on an increase (or were). But SDR data is already
out of date• The pickup was relatively modest for the young. Even in
the best of times fewer than one-in seven of young biomedical PhDs have an academic appointment (tenure-track or non-tenure track).
• Hiring was concentrated in non-tenure track positions.• The pickup that occurred was fueled in part by new
buildings coming on line which in turn were fueled by NIH budget growth. Lagged the doubling.
• But…
Jobs come with high expectations
• Faculty expected to generate grants• Not new, but more and more frequently this is a
condition of employment. Three years to cover salary.• Many tenure-track positions paid out of soft-money• Not one grant or two grants but three became
expectation at many research institutions• Not surprising that
– Number of NIH applications on increase– Many established investigators increased their number of
grants and size of their labs.
NIH Situation• Budgets have been flat, growing at less than inflation.
From $27.2 billion in 2003 to $28.7 in 2006.• Costs of grants are rising• Results in more grant applications chasing constant to
declining pool of resources• Translates into lower success rates• Most applications come from individuals who already
have grants.• New investigator pool is on decline after peeking in
2003.
NIH Primer• R01 is basic grant for independent research; in earlier
years R29 existed as the “first” independent award for new investigators. Duration of three to five years.
• Type 1 is a new application• Type 2 is a continuing application• Type 1’s can be from “new” investigators who have
never been funded or from established investigators• Review process: triage—group that is not scored;
possible to submit up to two amendments; can resubmit even if not scored.
• Important to distinguish between applicants and applications
Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent* Applications, Awards and Percent Funded
(Success Rate)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fiscal Year
Num
ber
of A
pplic
atio
(in
Thou
sand
s)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Per
cent
Fun
de
Reviewed Awarded Success Rate
R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37
NIH, OER: “Investment…”
Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent* Applicants Reviewed, Awarded, and Percent Funded (Success Rate)
-
5
10
15
20
25
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fiscal Year
Num
ber
of A
pplic
a(in
Tho
usan
ds)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Per
cent
Fun
de
Reviewed Awarded Percent Funded
R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37
NIH, OER: “Investment…”
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Review Year
Original New Applications Original Competing Continuations Amendments to New Applications Amendments to Competing Continuations
NIH COMPETING R01 EQUIVALENT APPLICATIONS BY YEAR OF REVIEW
NIH Competing R01 Applications by Year of Review
NIH, OER for AIRI
Number of New and Established Investigators Receiving Competing and R01 and R01 Equivalent Grants to 1962 to 2004
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Fiscal Year
Num
ber o
f Gra
nts
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Perc
ent G
rant
s to
New
Inve
stig
ator
s
Established InvestigatorsNew InvestigatorsPercent New Investigators
NIH, OER for AIRI
NIH New (Type 1) Competing R01 Equivalent Applications Success rates for first time and previously funded investigators
23.7%
18.4%
21.3%20.3%
21.7%
25.4%
26.9%
28.3% 28.7%28.1%
27.0% 26.9%
20.6%
15.9%17.0%
18.1%19.1%
21.1%
22.5%21.5%
22.2% 21.9%21.2%
20.6%22.5%
16.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Fiscal Year
Succ
ess
Rat
e
Previously Funded Investigators First Time Investigators
R01 Equivalent = R01, R29, and R37 activities.
NIH, OER for GREAT
Number of Different NIH Competing Research Project Grants Awarded to New Investigators, FY 1962 - 2005
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Fiscal Year
Num
ber o
f Aw
ards
to N
ew In
vest
igat
ors
R01 R23 R29 R03 R21 Other NIH, OER for GREAT
New Investigator Situation
– Virtually no increase in funding of “new” investigators in traditional R01
– Growth for new investigators has been in the R03 and R21 which are small in terms of funding and length of award.
• R03—small research project-- $50,000 per year for two years;
• R21 investigator-initiated exploratory development research—up to two years, not to exceed $275,000).
NIH Support Of First Time Investigators
NIH Competing R01/R29 awards to individuals without prior research grant support
1353 1284 1407 1439 1511 1532 1543 1559 1643 1492 1492
69 8076 98 73 88 65 66
9073 69
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1995
Pre
-dou
blin
g
1996
1997
1998
Per
iod
ofD
oubl
ing
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Pos
t Dou
blin
g
2005
Fiscal Year
Num
ber o
f Aw
ards
Other AIRI
NIH, OER for AIRI
37.3
42.9
35.2
43.2
51.7
40.9
30
35
40
45
50
55
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Age
rage
age
Average Age of New investigators Average Age of All investigators
AVERAGE AGE OF COMPETING R01 EQUIVALENT AWARDEESAverage Age of Competing R01 Equivalent Awards
NIH, OER for AIRI
DISTRIBUTION OF INVESTIGATOR AGES
NIH Competing R01 Equivalent Awardee
6.4% 6.4% 6.2% 4.8% 4.0% 3.8% 4.5% 3.5% 3.8%
18.4% 17.1% 16.5% 15.6% 14.1% 13.8% 13.0% 13.1% 12.9%
24.9% 23.9% 24.6% 23.1%22.4%
21.4% 21.7% 20.9% 20.0% 20.1% 19.6%
20.8% 20.3% 20.3% 20.5%21.4%
22.1% 21.7% 21.7% 21.1% 21.1% 22.2%
14.6% 15.2% 14.6% 15.7% 16.4% 16.6% 16.3% 16.0% 17.4% 18.1% 18.2%
14.5% 15.8% 17.0% 17.9% 19.6% 21.7% 22.7% 23.9% 24.9% 27.5% 27.6%
3.4%6.2%
12.0%19.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Fiscal Year
35 and Younger 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50 51 - 55 Over 55
NIH, OER for AIRI
Summarize NIH DataDuring Doubling
• Tremendous increase in number of new R01 applications
• Majority come from established investigators• Number of established investigators receiving
R01s has increased dramatically• Increase in percent of investigators who have
more than one grant• Creates significant change in age-distribution of
NIH awardees
Kangaroo Solution?
• Pathway to Independence Award Program: K99/R00
• 150 to 200 postdoctoral candidates for each of next 5 years.
• Mentored support while post doc followed by 3 years of R01-level funding, contingent upon securing a tenure-track position with appropriate institutional support and resources.
• A program with unintended consequences?
Program came out of the NRC Committee Report: Bridges to Independence
Summary• During doubling
– New grants to established investigators have increased dramatically.– Virtually no increase in funding of “new” investigators in traditional R01– Growth for new investigators has been in the R03 and R21 which are
small in terms of funding and length of award. – NIH increasingly is supporting established, older investigators.– Small number of Kangaroo awards means that implementation will have
little effect on age distribution.– Success rates for R01s are declining; – Success rates are especially low for new investigators.– Increased proportion of applications are being triaged and thus do not
receive comments. – Speed up review process as a solution?– Bridge money is being sought from universities.
What does future hold?• Assuming NIH situation stays as is• Universities will have to find alternative ways to
pay for buildings. NIH pick up less of tab; some relief as early-funded R01s lapse
• NIH is beginning to put brakes on tuition increases which universities relied on
• Recent faculty hires will have an especially difficult time getting funding and staying funded.
• Bridge money is constrained. Labs will downsize. Staff will be laid off.
• Young and untenured will bear disproportionate share of adjustment costs.
Future continued . . .
• Jobs, especially tenure-track jobs, are unlikely to increase
• Young researchers will increasingly need to look for alternative places to do research
• Unclear whether jobs in industry will expand sufficiently to absorb these young researchers
Lessons/Questions
• Fallacy of composition• Even in the best of times, the young don’t benefit
that much from increases in funding• Soft landing?• Do additional grants for productive scientists
significantly contribute to scientific knowledge?• Time to rethink the way in which research labs
are staffed in the United States?